Instigator / Pro
4
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#5268

It is usually better to have a kettle and a dildo than to have a frying pan and a school book.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
7,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
1,500
Contender / Con
7
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description

This is not a troll debate, understand that the votes will be held to voting moderation, it's a funny debate concept but the debate is 100% serious.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I think this debate could have been much easier to argue (and judge) if there was some agreement regarding what else is available to the persons with each of these items. Maybe it would have made more sense if it had been clarified up front (and both sides should have worked on this) what someone would “usually” have access to in order to determine what’s missing from those circumstances and how these particular items could fill those needs. If someone has regular access to clean water and an assortment of pots and pans, then the kettle doesn’t serve much of a unique function. If someone has regular access to the internet or a library, then a single school book doesn’t serve much of a unique function. At several points, both sides try to dictate what should and should not be considered “usual,” but the scattershot approach makes it very difficult to come down on a single view, which is what makes deciding this so difficult. Different circumstances change the game dramatically.

And here is where I’ll address a couple of niggling issues brought up by Con. The possibility of selling an item does seem outside of the scope of this debate. If it was within the scope of it, then Pro could simply establish that he had the most expensive dildo and/or kettle as his items, which would likely price higher than the book, and afford him the ability to buy everything he could ever need. It breaks the structure of the debate and I think Con had to do more to justify doing so. Similarly, while it could be argued what the background of the individual with these items would be, I think the fact that they have these particular items doesn’t imply anything about the individuals who have them. It may be more likely that someone who has a school book is a student, but the absence of a book doesn’t make them less likely to be a student. More importantly, since the debate is over whether these items improve their circumstances rather than an array of other factors that could also influence their outcomes, it comes down to the use of those items, not assumed other factors, to determine who wins this debate.

It also doesn’t help that there seems to be a split between arguing about basic survival and facilitating a generally improved lifestyle. Neither side makes any effort to weigh these points against one another, so you’re inviting your voters to weigh in. To me at least, survival seems like the most basic element here: if a person dies because they don’t have one of these items on one side, then that impact matters most to the debate. Both sides treat the threat on one’s personal safety as though it is an ever-present concern, so protecting oneself from active threats of death as well as being able to prepare sustenance are the more pressing concerns established in the debate, and therefore the ones I view as highest impact. So while sexual gratification, family structures and sex education may be important for mental health and wellbeing, and while STDs affect long-term health, they are minor impacts in this debate. Similarly, while reading a book might offer numerous avenues to success, those benefits are all so long-term and tenuous that they end up being minor. If there had been more exploration of the dildo as a tool of self-defense or if the specific contents of the book could have been discussed as a means of survival, maybe these would have remained important. Absent any argument that these benefits outweigh the much more pressing concerns I’ve mentioned, these two vanish into the background.

That just leaves the cooking implements. Both can sterilize water (the kettle is made specifically for that purpose, but the skillet can still perform it), so that’s non-unique. Both have issues with cleaning – a kettle requires more intensive cleaning, whereas cleaning a skillet can impact the skillet’s span of usefulness. The kettle can potentially be used as a means of training, though this is a long-term survival issue and the amount of benefit you can get from it, given the possibility of breaking the kettle or spilling water during training, is unclear. Both can cook different things, though the skillet is more diverse in terms of what you could prepare with it. In terms of self-defense, the kettle does retain heat for longer afterward if it has water in it. Still, the shape and size of the skillet does lend itself better to self-defense as demonstrated in the video, even if not everyone could wield it well (the same problem exists with the kettle – it’s not exactly simple to wield a kettle full of hot water without burning oneself, and even then, it wouldn’t constantly be under heat).

I end up voting for Con. The skillet has the edge in variety of food preparation and self-defense. If longer term issues were better weighed against these, they almost all favor Pro, but given that we somehow have to arrive at a point where the dildo can provide all those benefits, it’s not enough to outweigh Con’s benefits.